Don't Ask, Don't Tell fails Senate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you confident with your information about the study being held? Is the study in final form?
 
Administration expected to Appeal

FRom the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1306588.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2010101304664


The Obama administration, which is seeking a repeal of the law, nevertheless is expected to appeal a ruling by a California federal judge who declared the policy unconstitutional. The administration is also expected to seek a stay of the judge's injunction Tuesdayordering the military to immediately stop enforcing the ban worldwide.
The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.
"I think this is the answer," Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard. "Let the courts decide, but tell them what you think."
Click to expand...

I think an Appeal makes sense. Let this thing move through the courts. If the Stay is granted during the appeal process; then the ruling is temporarily set aside for the time being.
This is why there should not be any 'coming out' parties just yet.
 
Of course they'll seek a stay, it plays right into the lack of responsibility that has be come a characteristic of the powers that be. I'm sure they'll take credit for it too.
 
I don't think anyone shocked by them asking for a stay on Tuesday. The problem is Obama campaigned on the promise too repeal DADT and this is a political risk for him to go down this route.

For some that have always taken the line that this is no big deal, it smacks in the face when he was the candidate of hope and change. For others who have argued that there other issues, such as benefits, they find themselves supporting his decision since they understand the complexity of the issue itself. The problem Obama will find out is he is alienating his base and that is not a good sign.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Of course they'll seek a stay, it plays right into the lack of responsibility that has be come a characteristic of the powers that be. I'm sure they'll take credit for it too.
Click to expand...

Apologies - I am only on my first mug of tea this morning...
You are gonna have to clarify this for me. I don't know what you are getting at. When you say "I'm sure they'll take credit for it too" - who is "they" and what is "it"?
 
"They" would be "Administration Officials" and "it" would be any pro-homosexual actions, as the legislation didn't pass, so they (the Administration) will take the credit for anything that happens. I would not be surprised if they (the Administration) start touting the "stay" they (the Administration) issued. Political points with a section of the population in an election year.
 
How is seeking a stay "lack of responsibility".
Sorry but is your comment supposed to be sarcasm or tongue in cheek? Because none of it seems particularly cerebral.
 
Pima - yep - Obama was outdone by activists yet, again. The timing for this is not particularly good for him and puts him between a rock and a hard place.
I don't think this one appeal will hurt him politically at all. By appealing he is allowing this to be resolved by a larger party (Congress or the Supreme Court) than a federal trial judge; as it should be.

He is left with essentially no choice but to appeal. Here is another article, from Time that explains the dilemma rather well -
Choosing not to appeal carries big risks, and not just for the President. It's true that most Americans support an end to the military's discrimination against gays and lesbians. And it's true that the House has already passed a bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (though the Senate has so far refused to follow suit). And yes, appealing would mean going to court to defend a law the President has himself denounced as unfair and wrong. But if Obama does not appeal, it's likely that no one else would have standing to do so. The result would be that a single trial judge would then set policy for the entire country on a question of fundamental importance — a situation that the Administration perceives would be an uncomfortable one for a substantial number of Americans.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025270,00.html#ixzz12L0phCPx
 
Just_A_Mom said:
How is seeking a stay "lack of responsibility".
Sorry but is your comment supposed to be sarcasm or tongue in cheek? Because none of it seems particularly cerebral.
Click to expand...

Nope.....


I misread it. I withdraw my previous comment.
 
JAM,

The avg voter may have the memory of a gnat, but the opposition does not!

I can already see the 2012 ads, regarding Obama and HOPE AND CHANGE.

The Republicans will have a field day with him just using all of his military promises.

Granted, the Repubs support what he has done, but they will play his words over and over again on the airwaves. What is he going to do, say it was the Repubs in the Senate? How does he do this if Rubio or Christie is the Republican nom, when neither were in the Senate to vote on DADT?

The guy who painted the famous Obama hope design has come out and said he is disappointed.

Obama got the youth vote, and with unemployment expected to last through 2012, kids coming out of college with no jobs will not be running to the voting booths.

Obama's administration for the 2nd straight yr has not given a COLA to SS. The seniors are not going to forget that or the fact that MediCare docs are leaving in droves.

Our deficit is still going up with no end in sight.

We are losing military members daily in Afghanistan.

The latest CNN poll showed that Obama only beats Bush by 2% points, compared to last yr at 23% points. Bush, the root of all evil by most Americans.

Obama needs that base, and IMPO with the economic outlook, he just lost the last political base he still had in his corner. IMHPO, I find it interesting that the log cabin members brought this suit. The log cabin are REPUBLICANS. I am not naive, I think they did it more from a political reason than a gay rights issue. They may be his achilles heel. How does he attack the Log Cabin because they are Republicans and not offend the homosexual community? It was pure genius with regards to the Log Cabin. They are forcing his hand on his promise. DARN THOSE REPUBLICANS!

The avg American wants us out of Afghanistan and wants DADT repealed. It is doesn't look good for him right now. He will need to be a miracle worker in 12 to get people to buy Hope and Change.

I consider myself Independent, because socially I lean left, but fiscally I lean right. If I was forced to chose between a republican and a democrat without knowing their entire record, I typically will go republican. This yr, I am following our President's request...I will vote only for dems.

Of course, I see it differently than him. I want the dems to keep control, because I don't want any wiggle room. I don't want the dems to say the republicans caused the issue because of gridlock. If the economy and the world view changes (afghanistan, Israel, Iran, etc), I will be happy to say "YOU WERE RIGHT, GIVE IT TIME" if it doesn't, than I hope others are smart enough to not bite off on political rhetoric, and say to the dems "YOU WERE WRONG". Obama is not only our President but the leader for the DNC, he has to take responsibility for the rise and fall of the DNC.
 
I just cannot forsee a mass exodus of Democrats to the Republican party based on this appeal. Even if the Republicans want to take 'credit' for the DADT repeal since the lawsuit was brought by Log Cabin Republicans - they can't since they prevented passage of the repeal law in Congress.

Seriously, most Democrats - even those dissappointed with the lack of "Hope and Change" don't want to align themselves with the party of the Candidate who needs to declare on National TV that she is not a witch.


@LITS - I don't get your point. sorry.
 
JAM,

In no way was I saying that the dems would become repubs. However, in a general election you need to get the base out. Obama won because of independents and the youth vote. He needs them to come out again in full force. Independents and the youth vote no longer believe in his message of hope and change.

Christine O'Donnell was always a joke. No political junkie ever took her as a serious threat. Heck, Coons must have had done cartwheels when she won, because he knew it was all over. I bet he already has already checked out on the time tables for Acela to DC.

To compare a Tea Partier to the mainstream Republican party is like comparing Ralph Nader to the Democratic party. It is not realistic.

All Christine O'Donnell did was to make the dems say "CRAP, the Americans are really mad at the 2 party system". It does not deflect the problem Obama is going to face come Jan., when all of the ads start airing....remember Michael Moore and Bush playing golf, or going to Crawford, now the opposition will air him playing golf 52 times or his flight to NYC for a broadway play or Chicago for Valentines day. That is how the system works. Of course they will sprinkle in the unemployment rate, the foreclosure issue (which now is even bigger because of the moratorium), the stock market, etc, etc, etc.

Meanwhile, the NEU will air how Christie got into a one on one with the NJ Teachers union, asking them to freeze their salary, but they refused. That is not a good ad, since most Americans believe unions are a problem in a fiscal downturn. They will see Christie as the guy who put his political career at stake for the citizens regardless of how it would hurt him politically because of the power of the union. He stood up for what he promised to them. NJ is a dem state.

OBTW not saying Christie will run, just saying how an independent voter who sees a candidate take on a union as big as the NEA because a budget issue, compared to a President who keeps expanding the deficit because they refuse to take on the elephant in the room. Rubio is the same.

Obama with this game of appealing DADT is not standing up. To this day the man who voted against the surge has yet to say it worked, but he is following Bush by doing a surge in Afghanistan. Where's the hope and change? Bush and Obama seem to be on the same page for the military...how will he explain to America he is not Bush? He's also an arse if he thinks that the military will go from 70% republican to democrat. He didn't win the military vote, he won't win the military vote, they are a small segment, so if he really believes in repealing DADT...MAN UP...all he needs to do is issue an EO. This could end today. You can't play both sides of the fence. He must choose, and it appears, he chose the military's side. Again MAN UP. and say that after coming into office he has realized it is a complex issue, mainly based on the unique benefits that military members receive. Instead, he plays the game of politics. He can't say that because than it opens a bigger can of worms...civil unions. Obama is a politician, IMHO, end of subject, period, dot. He is not a saint. Log Cabin, because they are Republican Homosexuals showed to the country he is a politician and now he must face the fact that he can't play everybody every day.

Obama, has a political problem. Honestly, I think it was foolish to appeal it without saying publicly in a very loud voice, I have directed the AG to appeal it because I respect the DOD and the survey would not be completed before the injunction drop dead date. The majority of Americans can get behind that. Instead they don't say that, and the majority of Americans are uninformed regarding the survey, so they think he is backing out of a promise.

It's all POLITICS, and his people screwed up because the message of why he is appealing is lost. How's that for leadership? Like I said before I am voting straight line dem for the first time in 26 yrs. I think our President asked for this support and I am willing to give it to him, what's the worst that could happen since we are already in the crapper in every aspect!
 
Last edited:
You get no argument from me. He won't issue the EO to dump the policy. The want the 'people' to decide it and take ownership of it.
He wants it to be decided by Congress or now the Supreme Court.
He does NOT want it decided by one Federal trial judge out in California. On this I agree.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
You get no argument from me. He won't issue the EO to dump the policy. The want the 'people' to decide it and take ownership of it.
He wants it to be decided by Congress or now the Supreme Court.
He does NOT want it decided by one Federal trial judge out in California. On this I agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think anyone wants judges "legislating from the bench."

The Congress needs to pass the legislation, and the president needs to sign it.

However, that does not discount or downplay the role of the Federal Courts in stopping bad laws or unconstitutional policy in the mean time, though.
 
Assuming it is considered "Unconstitutional". You can argue all day that the policy is wrong, bad, insensitive, outdated, etc... and most people would agree with you. But unconstitutional can be argued. We're talking about the military. And the military is allowed to have laws, rules, policies, etc... to maintain order and discipline, that are unconstitutional for a non-military person. The military has it's own sub-sections of the constitution just for this. Freedom of Speech? Not equal in the military. Liberty? Not equal in the military. In other words, DADT, while a crappy policy, isn't necessarily unconstitutional.

Now, some here might say that I am acting as though I know MORE than a federal judge. Well, even federal judges are humans and their opinions and decisions are also affected by their perspective. And if this federal judge was correct; which I believe she isn't; then this would have had this finding in federal court much sooner than 17 years later. Obviously, there's a LOT of other judges that don't necessarily agree with here. And if the congress wanted to push the issue (BUT THEY DON'T BECAUSE IT'S NOT POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM); chances are that it would be decided that the bill of rights that limit the power of government on it's citizens does not apply 100% equally with military members; and that the articles and code that gives congress and the president power over the military, allows them to have policies and laws that normally wouldn't be accepted in the civilian world. (We have a lot of military laws, policies, and rules that would NEVER be tolerated in the civilian world in a court of law if an employer tried to enforce them).
 
Obviously, there's a LOT of other judges that don't necessarily agree with here
Click to expand...
Christcorp - can you please link to all the Federal Judges who have ruled for DADT since it's implementation in 1996?
I am curious to read about these rulings.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
@LITS - I don't get your point. sorry.
Click to expand...

That's okay, we've been down that road before. I can't make it any easier than I already have.

Politicians aren't fighting for the Republicans or Democrats. They want their base to stay engaged and vote. They ARE fighting for the fuzzy, minority in the middle known as independants.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Christcorp - can you please link to all the Federal Judges who have ruled for DADT since it's implementation in 1996?
I am curious to read about these rulings.
Click to expand...

Are you asking how many DADT cases resulting in the service member NOT being reinstated in the military after they "come out?"

Um....is that the road you're going down? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top